From: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@intel.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2 v2] sched/wait: Introduce lock breaker in wake_up_page_bit
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 12:57:06 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <37D7C6CF3E00A74B8858931C1DB2F077537A1C19@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFzotfXc07UoVtxvDpQOP8tEt8pgxeYe+cGs=BDUC_A4pA@mail.gmail.com>
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 7:51 AM, Liang, Kan <kan.liang@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > I tried this patch and https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/8/27/222 together.
> > But they don't fix the issue. I can still get the similar call stack.
>
> So the main issue was that I *really* hated Tim's patch #2, and the patch to
> clean up the page wait queue should now make his patch series much more
> palatable.
>
> Attached is an ALMOST COMPLETELY UNTESTED forward-port of those two
> patches, now without that nasty WQ_FLAG_ARRIVALS logic, because we now
> always put the new entries at the end of the waitqueue.
>
The patches fix the long wait issue.
Tested-by: Kan Liang <kan.liang@intel.com>
> The attached patches just apply directly on top of plain 4.13-rc7.
>
> That makes patch #2 much more palatable, since it now doesn't need to play
> games and worry about new arrivals.
>
> But note the lack of testing. I've actually booted this and am running these
> two patches right now, but honestly, you should consider them "untested"
> simply because I can't trigger the page waiters contention case to begin with.
>
> But it's really just Tim's patches, modified for the page waitqueue cleanup
> which makes patch #2 become much simpler, and now it's
> palatable: it's just using the same bookmark thing that the normal wakeup
> uses, no extra hacks.
>
> So Tim should look these over, and they should definitely be tested on that
> load-from-hell that you guys have, but if this set works, at least I'm ok with it
> now.
>
> Tim - did I miss anything? I added a "cpu_relax()" in there between the
> release lock and irq and re-take it, I'm not convinced it makes any difference,
> but I wanted to mark that "take a breather" thing.
>
> Oh, there's one more case I only realized after the patches: the stupid
> add_page_wait_queue() code still adds to the head of the list.
> So technically you need this too:
>
> diff --git a/mm/filemap.c b/mm/filemap.c
> index 74123a298f53..598c3be57509 100644
> --- a/mm/filemap.c
> +++ b/mm/filemap.c
> @@ -1061,7 +1061,7 @@ void add_page_wait_queue(struct page *page,
> wait_queue_entry_t *waiter)
> unsigned long flags;
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(&q->lock, flags);
> - __add_wait_queue(q, waiter);
> + __add_wait_queue_entry_tail(q, waiter);
> SetPageWaiters(page);
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&q->lock, flags);
> }
>
> but that only matters if you actually use the cachefiles thing, which I
> hope/assume you don't.
>
> Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-08-29 12:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-08-25 16:13 [PATCH 1/2 v2] sched/wait: Break up long wake list walk Tim Chen
2017-08-25 16:13 ` [PATCH 2/2 v2] sched/wait: Introduce lock breaker in wake_up_page_bit Tim Chen
2017-08-25 19:58 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-08-25 22:19 ` Tim Chen
2017-08-25 22:51 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-08-25 23:03 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-08-26 0:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-08-26 2:54 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-08-26 18:15 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-08-27 21:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-08-27 21:42 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-08-27 23:12 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-08-28 1:16 ` Nicholas Piggin
2017-08-28 1:29 ` Nicholas Piggin
2017-08-28 5:17 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-08-28 7:18 ` Nicholas Piggin
2017-08-28 14:51 ` Liang, Kan
2017-08-28 16:48 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-08-28 20:01 ` Tim Chen
2017-08-29 12:57 ` Liang, Kan [this message]
2017-08-29 16:01 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-08-29 16:13 ` Tim Chen
2017-08-29 16:24 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-08-29 16:57 ` Tim Chen
2017-09-14 2:12 ` Tim Chen
2017-09-14 2:27 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-09-14 16:50 ` Tim Chen
2017-09-14 17:00 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-09-14 16:39 ` Christopher Lameter
2017-08-29 16:17 ` Tim Chen
2017-08-29 16:22 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-08-25 17:46 ` [PATCH 1/2 v2] sched/wait: Break up long wake list walk Christopher Lameter
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=37D7C6CF3E00A74B8858931C1DB2F077537A1C19@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com \
--to=kan.liang@intel.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox